CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple. He told me privately that he doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I think there's a good chance he's a troll, as alleged. If there's more evidence of that, I'd like to see it posted here. Even then, I wouldn't support this action. We can always choose to ignore him, and to date, I'm not aware that he's been disruptive on any other threads.

If he's done something more egregious than what we've seen on this thread, can the mods please explain?

If not, I respectfully request he be given back his posting priveleges.

Not because I think he's posting anything of value, but because I want this board to maintain the highest standards of tolerance. GOP was much more deserving of being banned, but wasn't. Let's please not stoop to UD's level in this case, either.

I think there's a good chance he's a troll, as alleged. If there's more evidence of that, I'd like to see it posted here. Even then, I wouldn't support this action. We can always choose to ignore him, and to date, I'm not aware that he's been disruptive on any other threads.

If he's done something more egregious than what we've seen on this thread, can the mods please explain?

If not, I respectfully request he be given back his posting priveleges.

Not because I think he's posting anything of value, but because I want this board to maintain the highest standards of tolerance. GOP was much more deserving of being banned, but wasn't. Let's please not stoop to UD's level in this case, either.

My $0.02.

I just got asked for details by the listmoms, I didn't make any decisions. I do know that he's posted the exact same stuff at Richard Dawkins' official forum, and at umpty other places, and been banned elsewhere.

Here's an old "private message" from a year or so ago, at CARM. It took me a while to dig it out, since that feature has been disabled.

[QUOTE=fusilier;1172951] One chance to apologize, supersport. I don't like to hide behind mods, so here's your opportunity to be a man and admit what you did is wrong.

fusilierJames 2:24[/QUOTE]

Oh lighten up fuzzy liar...I've been called lots worse on bulletinboards, like stupidplurt and snotsport. Its all a game anyway, I justlike to have fun at work waiting for phone calls. coadie may believethis crap, but I don't.

supersport"The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (thatis, nonevolution)."SJ Gould

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue. Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question. Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong. In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?

I take it then, FTK, that you believe Newtonian gravity takes precedence over relativity, that E=MC^2 controls the maximum speed you can travel, and that *all* scientists are wicked evil atheists who are in a big conspiracy? (That includes your hero Brown).

--------------To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

I take it then, FTK, that you believe Newtonian gravity takes precedence over relativity, that E=MC^2 controls the maximum speed you can travel, and that *all* scientists are wicked evil atheists who are in a big conspiracy? (That includes your hero Brown).

She's open to all possibilities in these areas. Including that E=MC^2 is the relationship between molasses cookies eaten by Santa and the number of floating forests Brown has lived on.

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue. Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question. Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong. In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?

Blipster, just because you don't like or agree with a person's answer doesn't mean they didn't give one.

And, dude, I am all about substantiation this time around. Here are just some of his answers...

Now, here is what I want to know. Why was he banned?? Isn't it Wes who made the "I'm with the banned" buttons? Don't you guys complain *all the time* about Davescots banning policy? What the heck is going on around here?

Wes, are you going to address this, or are you going to pull a Lilley??

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

I find it a bit odd that you guys are so interested in the OU lecture. It's not like it's the first he's done. Shoot, I attended his lecture at KU last year. Darwinists lined up in droves at the mic that time as well. Dembski didn't blog about that lecture either that I remember.

Does he blog about every speaking engagement?

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue. Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question. Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong. In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?

Blipster, just because you don't like or agree with a person's answer doesn't mean they didn't give one.

And, dude, I am all about substantiation this time around. Here are just some of his answers...

Baloney. Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around". Click on those 9 links and you find that sporty's answers were, in reality

#1- a bald-faced assertion unsupported by evidence#2 - answering a question by posing another question, which was not an answer#3 - an opinion, later shown to be complete bs#4 - a busted link, perhaps you copied the URL wrong#5 - an opinion that a dinosaur fossil is 6.8 thousand years old, unsupported by evidence#6 - an opinion, later debunked#7 - a quotemine of an article, which was shown not to back up his assertion at all#8 - same bs as #7, repeated for comic effect?#9 - a bunch of bs which avoided an actual answer

Furthermore, he avoided ever backing up his claim that mental processes can generate life instantly, even though he was asked about this at least 9 or 10 times.

Sounds like your kind of guy.

Welcome back.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers